NETLMM Meeting
IETF 67
James Kempf
kempf@docomolabs-usa.com
Phil Roberts
phil.roberts@motorola.com
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agenda bashing – all, 5 min.
Draft status – James Kempf, 5 min.
SDO Liason Update – James Kempf, 5 min.
Ground Rules for Discussion – Jari Arkko, 5 min.
Context for Current Situation – Phil Roberts, 5 min.
Summary of Design Team Document, Henrik Levkowetz,
10 min.
draft-sgundave-mipv6-proxymipv6-00 , Sri Gundaveli, 5
min.
draft-chowdhury-netmip6-01, Kuntal Chowdhury, 5 min.
draft-templin-autoconf-netlmm-dhcp-04.txt, Fred Templin,
5 min.
Discussion, all, 20 min.
Consensus Call, James Kempf, 5 min.
Draft Status
• draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps
– One round of IESG review, all discuss comments resolved
– Resubmitted to IESG in Sept.
– Current state: AD-Followup
• draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req
– One round of IESG review, all discuss comments resolved
– Resubmitted to IESG in Oct.
– Current state: AD-Followup
• draft-ietf-netlmm-threats
– Submitted to IESG in Oct.
– AD Review complete
– Current state: IESG Evaluation
SDO Liaison Update
James Kempf
3GPP System Architecture
Evolution (SAE)
•
Conference call Tues.
–
–
–
–
–
•
NETLMM co-chairs
SAE chair (Magnus Olsson)
3GPP liaison to IETF (Hannu Hietalahti)
IETF liaison to 3GPP (Gonzalo Camarillo)
Jonne Soininen
3GPP is currently debating what protocol to use on S5 and S2 interfaces
– These are inter-technology interfaces
•
Most companies prefer an IETF solution, but which one?
– Network based
• Mobile IP
• Other
– Client Mobile IP
•
•
GTP is also under discussion
Schedule:
– Architecture complete 6/07
– Protocols selected 12/07
3GPP2 Meeting
• Lunch meeting
–
–
–
–
–
IETF 3GPP2 liaison (Thomas Narten)
INT AD (Jari Arkko)
NETLMM co-chairs
3GPP2 IETF liaison (AC Mahendran)
A few others
• 3GPP2 intends to submit a liaison statement to IETF
requesting PMIP be standardized
• What they want:
– Reuse, even if a 3775 HA couldn’t be reused without change
– Global mobility management, but they would be willing to settle
for local
• Schedule:
– RFC number by 12/07
Wimax Forum
• JAK presented NETLMM DT protocol in
August at San Diego Meeting
• Reception was hostile
• Not much interest
Ground Rules for Discussion
Jari Arkko
Ground Rules
• Protocol choice is a community decision
• We need to make the decision now
• Documented requirements will not be compromised
• We are also sticking to our earlier link model decisions
• All the usual Standards Track requirements apply
• There will be some changes to implementations
• All the specifications will take some time to finish
• IETF has change control -- result is NOT what you
already may have deployed
Context for Current Situation
Phil Roberts
List Discussion Background
• Results of consensus call on making DT draft a
WG draft
– 13 in favor
– 6 opposed
– 2 abstained or unclear
• WG chairs wanted to see some discussion on
technical merits of PMIP as opposed to DT
protocol for NETLMM
• After a rocky start, some discussion did occur
and some conclusions seem possible
– Some questions are still unclear, however
What’s Coming Up Now
• Presentations on proposals for protocols
• Discussion
• Consensus call on moving forward
– Which approach should the WG adopt?
• DT Protocol?
• DHCP-based approach?
• PMIP?
– Which drafts should be WG drafts?
• If you care, please pay attention
Summary of Design Team
Document
Henrik Levkowetz
draft-sgundave-mipv6proxymipv6-00
Sri Gundaveli
Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-sgundave-mip-pmipv6-00.txt
Goals:
Provides mobility support to a IPv6 host within a topologically
localized portion of the network, with out requiring the host to
participate in any mobility related signaling.
Assumptions:
- MN-AR link is a p2p link
- The access authorization ensures a secure MN-AR link
- Per MN Prefix model (We do support Per-MN-Address model,
but requires extra messaging between AR and HA)
New Entity (Proxy Mobile Agent):
The proxy mobile agent is a functional element on the access
router. This is the entity that makes the mobile station
believe it is at its home link, by emulating the home link
properties. The function is very similar to MIPv4’s foreign agent.
Proxy Mobile IPv6 Overview
Mobile IP Tunnel
A IPinIP tunnel HA and PMA.
Home Network
Mobile’s Home Network
(Topological Anchor Point)
Home
Agent
Prefix
CAFÉ::/64
PMA2
Host
D
PMA1
C
Host
Prefix
BABA::/64
LMM Network
Access
Router
Proxy Binding Update (PBU)
Control message sent out by PMA to HA to
register its correct location
Care of Address (CoA)
The address of the Proxy Mobile Agent.
That will be the tunnel end-point.
Address Allocation Models
PER-MN-PREFIX MODEL
- The mobile’s prefix/link follows the mobile. The home
agent just creates a routing state for the mobile’s prefix.
It will not participate in any link specific ND operations.
- Address pool configuration in DHCP, on a per-MN basis
becomes simple.
PER-MN-ADDRESS MODEL
- Need to deal with issues related to split links. Home
Agent needs to participate in ND relation operations.
- Home Agent needs to participate in Global Address / LLA
uniqueness
Address Allocation Schemes
Stateless Address Configuration Mode
Support for stateless auto configuration mode. The
mobile will be able to auto-configure an address after it
receives the RA from the Access Router.
DHCP Based Address Configuration Mode
• The mobile will be able to send a DHCP request and the
proxy mobile agent acting as a DHCP relay agent, will
ensure the mobile gets an address from its own
configured address block.
Home Agent Changes
• Changes required for supporting Proxy Trust Model.
Subtle logic changes are required for validating Proxy
Registrations that are protected by IPSec SA.
• The 1:1 relation between a Mobile Node and a tunnel
needs to be modified to adapt m:1 relation. The tunnel
between the mobile and the proxy is a shared tunnel.
• Handling of the sequence numbers in the proxy binding
updates needs to modified. The Proxy sending the PBU
to the home agent will not be able to set the sequence
number correctly.
draft-chowdhury-netmip6-01
Kuntal Chowdhury
Motivation
• Network based mobility management
using MIP6 protocol when the MN does
NOT use Client MIP6
• Reuse of deployed infrastructure such as
the Home Agent
Solution Overview
• Defines IP session setup procedures with
PMIP6
• Covers both:
– DHCP case
– PPP/IPCP case
• Supports both IPv6 and IPv4 addressing
• Reuses MIP6 base protocol (RFC 3775)
for mobility management
• No new MH and MO introduced
Solution Overview, contd.
• Addresses Inter Access Router (AR)
handoffs
– Inter AR signaling with ICMPv6 extensions
• Includes HMIP6 consideration
– Proxy HMIP6 within the MAP footprint
draft-templin-autoconfnetlmm-dhcp-04.txt
Fred Templin
Consensus Call
James Kempf
Which Approach to Adopt?
• NETLMM WG should adopt DT draft?
– Please raise your hands!
• NETLMM WG should adopt a PMIP draft
– Please raise your hands!
• NETLMM WG should adopt DHCP-based
approach
– Please raise your hands!
• NETLMM WG should adopt more than one draft
– Please raise your hands!
Which PMIP Draft Should the WG
Adopt?
• draft-sgundave-mipv6-proxymipv6-00
– Please raise your hand!
• draft-chowdhury-netmip6-01
– Please raise your hand!